Shred Act: If Keeping Fees Locally is Good For Ski Permits, Why Not Other Revenues?

Here’s a link to an article on the Shred Act. It’s comprehensive and has much historic perspective. 

It’s a bipartisan bill, and seems (perhaps unsurprisingly) to be supported by Congressfolk with ski areas in their district or State.

My question is: why would ski areas be special.. shouldn’t all recreation permit dollars, logically, go back to the Forest, or does it vary by kind of permit? Looks like NPS fees under FLREA are 80/20 local vs. other Parks and doesn’t go to the Treasury at all.  But maybe the other recreation permit fees are so minimal it wouldn’t matter? I found this page and got lost.  Then there’s the concessionaires, which according to our friends at the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition, is 10-15% of their gross revenue but paid in offsets, which effectively keeps the funding hyper-locally.

Of course, I guess that opens a broader question of “why not grazing fees or timber sale receipts?”  Maybe they already are going back to local units.  I think a table of different revenue sources and the proportion that stays local, goes to other similar programs, or goes back to the Treasury might be helpful in putting this bill in context. Maybe administering how the funds would go back to the unit is more work than it’s worth for smaller-dollar permits?

Colorado congressmen are taking another shot at keeping revenue from ski area fees in the local communities where resorts operate.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, reintroduced the Ski Hill Resources for Economic Development, or SHRED Act, for the third time. Bennet was joined by co-sponsor Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, and several other lawmakers in bringing it to the U.S. Senate. Colorado Democratic Rep. Joe Neguse and Rep. Blake Moore, a Utah Republican, introduced the act in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“The SHRED Act ensures revenue generated by Colorado’s world-renowned ski areas stays in these rural and mountain communities,” Neguse wrote in an email, adding that the act would “keep ski fees local, reinvest in our national forests, and support the outdoor recreation economy and critical locally led initiatives.”

Currently, ski resorts that operate on U.S. Forest Service land have to pay a permit fee that goes directly to the U.S. Treasury. The fees from the 124 U.S. ski resorts operating on Forest Service land total over $40 million annually.

However, there is no guarantee that these funds go back to the national forests bearing the brunt of the recreational activity, which is what the SHRED Act aims to change.

As drafted, SHRED would establish a framework for local national forests to keep a portion of these fees to offset increased recreational use by supporting local ski permit and program administration.

It would enable 80% of the fees to be used for needs in the forests where they’re generated, leaving 20% for other national forests with winter or broad recreation needs.

Within each national forest, 75% of the funds would support the ski area program and permitting needs, to process proposals for ski area improvement projects, visitor information and wildfire preparedness. The remaining 25% would be set aside for year-round local recreation management and community needs. This includes special-use permit administration, visitor services, trailhead improvements, facility maintenance, search and rescue activities, avalanche information and education, habitat restoration at recreation sites and workforce housing.

If passed, the act could bring in up to $27 million for national forests in Colorado, according to estimates from the Forest Service and information from Bennet’s office.

The majority, around $20 million, would come from the White River National Forest where Vail Mountain, Beaver Creek Resort, Breckenridge Ski Resort, Keystone Resort, Arapahoe Basin Ski Area, Copper Mountain Resort, Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands, Buttermilk, Snowmass and Sunlight Mountain Resort all operate.